 All right, I'll start it up. Thank you. Good to go. Okay. Good morning. This is a convening of my apologies. Master of the Scaling Commission, and I'm calling this burden, so we'll do a roll call. Good morning again, Commissioner O'Brien. Good morning, I'm here. Good morning again, Commissioner Hill. Good morning, I'm here. Good morning again, Commissioner Skinner. Good morning. And good morning again, Commissioner Maynard. Good morning. All right, we'll get started. This is a single item agenda, and we are discussing a promotion offered by Penn Sports Interactive, doing business at Barstow Sports Book, and we are going to get an update from Director Lillios, I believe. There you are, and then we'll happily go, give us some guidance and options. Shall I jump right in, Chair? Yes, please, Director Lillios. Okay, good morning again, Chair and Commissioners. As you mentioned, we will be discussing a matter involving our category three, Licensee Penn Sports Interactive. The IEB reviewed a wager that was promoted on the Barstow Interface. It was brought to our attention over the weekend through multiple inquiries, mostly through media inquiries. And also I wanna mention that Penn's VP of Compliance, Mr. Soriano, who's on the call today, affirmatively reached out to the IEB and acknowledged the promoted wager as well and made himself available to discuss it, and we have discussed it this week. The particular wager is promoted as the quote, big cats can't lose parlay, unquote. And big cat refers to Mr. Dan Katz, who hosts the Barstow Sports Podcast. The particular parlay offering that we saw involved for NCAA men's basketball games, all of which have been played by now. And the area of concern right now was whether the can't lose aspect of the promotion runs afoul of a statutory and regulatory language in 23N and the 205CMR series or any other provisions governing in the consumer protection realm. Also, I wanna mention that the can't lose parlay is not a one-off wager, it is a regularly featured wager on the Barstow app. Penn did inform the IEB that they would voluntarily discontinue offering any can't lose wagers in mass or elsewhere for the time being. So right now, no can't lose wagers are being promoted by Penn. I did provide you with a brief review report on this matter, citing a number of governing authorities that may be implicated here, starting with 23N. I'll highlight some of them now, starting with 23N, section 4C which prohibits marketing or branding in any manner that is deceptive or false and also may tend to deceive or create a misleading impression directly or by ambiguity or omission, excuse me. There are also a number of regs in our advertising series in the 205CMR 256 series, which may be implicated. In particular, I'll highlight a couple in the 256.04 series which prohibits not only unfair or deceptive branding, marketing, advertising, but also those that would reasonably be expected to confuse or mislead patrons in order to induce them to engage in sports wagering. Another provision in the subsection six is prohibition on anything that would imply or promote that sports wagering is free of risk in general or in connection with a particular promotion or sports wagering offer. So those are some of the most high level authorities, but also wanted to remind that the office of the attorney general did provide comments to the commission both written and orally, I think at the meeting on the 9th and highlighted the Commonwealth Consumer Protection Law on 93A and its parallel regulations as well as the federal counterpart Consumer Protection Law. And the AG pointed out and emphasized that this industry must act within the context of those existing laws and regulations as well that are designed to promote fairness in the marketplace. So really that's a short summary of what the IEB looked at. I understand we're here this morning for you to decide on a process of how you would like to assess this matter process-wise. So thank you, Loretta. Before I turn to commissioners for any questions, I think I'd like to turn to Council Grossman. And if you could just give us guidance in the framework for options on process. I know that you're working on formalizing that process too for us, so thank you, Tom. Well, we can't, I know, I know, I'm sorry. Let's try it this way. And I apologize for any distraction in the background. It's a half day today. If you can hear me now, I'll jump right in and just say that as Loretta just mentioned, the matter is before you today solely so that the commission can make a determination as to what process it will follow to review and resolve this issue that she just mentioned. The general circumstances of the matter are not being presented today for purposes of making a final decision in order to ensure the integrity of the proceedings that will follow. And in order to ensure that there is fundamental fairness to the licensee, it's important that this juncture that we be careful not to deliberate over this matter today by expressing any firm opinions relative to any particular facts, or for example, as to the propriety of any action that may have been taken. Notably, the licensee here has not been provided with any notice or an opportunity to prepare for proceeding today. It will not have the ability here to challenge any facts or conclusions, nor will it have an opportunity today to advocate for a particular outcome or advance any legal arguments. There will, of course, be an opportunity afforded to them to do so in the near future so that this matter can be equitably addressed. Of course, as you know, there are a series of regulations that Loretta just mentioned in 205, CMR 256, that govern sports majoring advertising. The regulations are based on the authority and particulars included in chapter 23N. So the ultimate question then will be whether the issue that was described and all the facts and circumstances were within the bounds of the law or in violation of the law. And if it's the latter, the question will be what the proper remedies should be, which brings us to why we're here today. There are three procedural options that govern based on the governing laws that allow the commission to resolve such questions. And the commission can decide today which option it would like to pursue in an effort to resolve this matter. And I'll just walk through all three. And of course, as always, I would invite any questions or comments. The first option is that the commission may choose to conduct an adjudicatory proceeding in the first instance. This option is firmly rooted in chapter 30A of the general laws, which is the Administrative Procedure Act. And that, of course, is applicable to all state agencies, as well as chapter 23N, which of course is just particular to sports wagering. In this instance, the commission may ask the IEB to investigate the matter and present a report of its findings. Under this scenario, the IEB would not make a recommendation as to what the proper remedy for any violation should be. That would be in the commission's sole province. After an adjudicatory hearing, the commission can, of course, condition the sports wagering operator license, revoke or suspend the operator's license, or assess a fine or civil administrative penalty pursuant to section 16 of chapter 23N. So that's the first option. The second option, which is described in our regulations in section 205, CMR 232, is similar to the first, but has some important distinctions. In this scenario, option two, the commission would direct the IEB to investigate the facts and circumstances of the matter and make a recommendation as to the remedy for any violations of the law or regulations that it finds. The recommendation would then be provided to both the commission and the licensee. At that juncture, the licensee may within 10 business days of the issuance of the recommendation request an adjudicatory hearing on the IEB's recommendation. If such a request is made by the licensee, the commission would convene an adjudicatory proceeding after which it may adopt or reject the discipline recommended by the IEB or order such other discipline as it may find appropriate. If the licensee does not request an adjudicatory hearing upon receiving the IEB's recommendation, the commission, the regs require shall at its next scheduled public meeting review the IEB's recommendation and either adopt the recommendation as its final decision, which would effectively end the matter or be reject the IEB's recommendation and issue a notice of its intent to adopt a separate recommendation following an adjudicatory proceeding. So that's the second option that the commission has to address this matter. And then there's the third option which is rooted in the language in chapter 23N, section 16. This section sets out the process by which the commission may assess a civil administrative penalty on sportsway during operators. Section 16 specifically provides that if the commission seeks to assess a civil administrative penalty on an operator, the commission shall cause to be served upon the operator a written notice of its intent to assess a civil administrative penalty. The required notice must include a variety of information, including the amount that the commission seeks to assess as a civil administrative penalty and a statement of the operator's right to an adjudicatory hearing on the proposed assessment. Per this section, notice of the amount of the penalty the commission seeks to assess is provided prior to an adjudicatory hearing. Practically, this means that the commission would need to discuss the potential violation, decide whether it wants to assess a civil administrative penalty and set the amount of the penalty in a public meeting. This would again would occur prior to an adjudicatory hearing. If the commission issued the required notice of penalty, the operator would then have the opportunity to seek an adjudicatory hearing before the commission or it could waive its right to the adjudicatory hearing and accept the finding. A licensee may either affirmatively waive its right or shall be deemed to have waived its right to an adjudicatory hearing, unless not more than 21 days after the date of the commission's written notice that I just described that the commission seeks to assess such a civil administrative penalty. The licensee files the commission a written statement either denying the occurrence of any of the acts or emissions alleged by the commission or asserting that the amount of the proposed civil administrative penalty is excessive. In an adjudicatory hearing authorized under chapter 30A, the commission would then be required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence, the occurrence of each act or emission alleged by the commission in the written notice. This is the manner in which the licensee's rights are protected under this third option, even though the initial review by the commission is conducted in a public meeting without all of the procedural safeguards of an adjudicatory proceeding being in place. So that's the third option. And that kind of is an overview of all three of the procedural options that the law affords the commission to resolve a matter of this sort. So with that, I'll pause. I'm happy to entertain any questions or try to offer more insight to either of these three options. So let's turn first to Todd. Questions on the process, the three options that were laid out. I see Commissioner Hill, you're shaking your head. No, you're all set. Okay, questions. Commissioner O'Brien, Commissioner Skinner, Commissioner Maynard. Just for clarification purposes, the process we're in the middle of right now in adjudicatory hearing, Todd. One, two or three option. One, two or three. So that's option one. That was, we went right, the ones we did yesterday, we went right into the adjudicatory proceeding. The IEB reviewed it. There was no recommendation by the IEB and it's just the straight regular hearing that the commissioners have now become accustomed to conduct. Thanks. Commissioner Skinner, Commissioner Maynard. Questions for Todd? I'm sure O'Brien. Good. Commissioner Skinner? All set. So one clarification, I think you may have said that we could ask IEB for supplemental or further information before opting from one, if we were to opt from one, the adjudicatory hearing or no. Today we have a report from IEB and I'm understanding that I think from Commissioner O'Brien, one of the options would be we could do as we've done with the other issues that just happened to be before us and go within adjudicatory hearing. And I wanted to ask the commissioners, would they have the opportunity, well ask you, Todd, would they have the opportunity to ask for any supplemental information at this juncture if they wanted it? Yeah, I think that's always an option to ask that further information be provided about any matter before you or clarification, whether it's before the proceeding or after. Of course, if it's an adjudicatory proceeding, we need to ensure that the licensee have access to whatever information would be presented at the hearing in advance of the year. Do you have any requests? We have today's report. So, Director Lillios, we have not heard from Mr. Sareano and I don't think we necessarily need to hear from Mr. Sareano at this juncture, but Director Lillios, I turn to you. You've had conversations with him. I don't know if he expected to give any update. I know that his interest right now is just that he have the opportunity at the appropriate time to address the commission and provide information that he and the company feels is important to the commission's decision. So he fully appreciates that you're talking about process today and his interest is making sure he has that opportunity. So he expressed that to me this morning. Okay, so commissioners, where do you feel in terms of those three options if we take any action at all? I guess it's also the option of no action, right, Todd? That's right, that is always an option. Commissioners. I think I saw Commissioner O'Brien hooked in first. Okay, so I guess my question for Loretta, I'm leaning toward treating this as the other two that have been, or even I guess more than that at this point that have been brought to our attention in terms of option one. Those have been a little more discreet potentially factually. So I guess my question to Loretta, although I want one is whether there's more IEV feels that it can do to give to us before we actually move on an option one. You know, I do think that this matter is limited to this language of, you know, a can't lose wager. If there were areas that commissioners were interested in I definitely envisioned that the IEV would play a role in assisting in that way. You know, I don't know if it would be helpful. I'm not sure exactly what would be helpful to you. There's nothing that I see out there that I'm, you know, feel like would be necessary for you. But this is a new type of arena, a new type of, you know, interface that may be new to many of us. So if there was something there that would be helpful, I know I provided a very short addendum attached to this report. If more information on the interface would be helpful to you, for example, you know, we could do that, but I would look for some guidance from you as to what would be helpful. Okay, thanks. Commissioner Hill? Well, if you're looking for opinions, Madam Chair, we've been following a certain process over the last week or so for option one. And I think that's what we should continue to do. Moving forward, we've made it our business as a commission early on in the process of sports wagering to take these issues and bring them before the commission. And I think we should continue to do that because this industry is so new. So I would, in my opinion, we would probably adopt option one in having the Judicatory hearing with the IEB doing their investigation and then getting it to us. Continuing the process that we've already started with others. Okay, Commissioner Hill can, so today we do have a review from IEB and I think Loretta would love any guidance for additional material that we might want. It's hard for us to imagine. I think, right, honestly, Loretta, because we're not necessarily in your mindset about collecting the information, but on its face, there's something that you know right now that you would like Loretta to pursue. Commissioner Hill, in addition to what we have in front of us. So I would have to think about that a little bit. And I think I heard Todd say that we could ask for further information after today, as long as both sides get the information. And I think I could come up with a couple of more things that I'd like to say, but need to put on my thinking cap. Well, that's, and I appreciate that. Commissioner Skinner, Commissioner Maynard, I'm taking your temperature. Commissioner Skinner? I'm not ready to weigh in yet, Chair. Okay, I'll swing back to you. Commissioner Maynard? I think that Commissioner O'Brien and Commissioner Hill really captured what I will say as to the questions in advance. Oftentimes, when I get in a room with my fellow commissioners, I learn what I didn't know. And so I don't know that I could come with a bunch of questions right now, Loretta, that I want, but that's not to say that something doesn't spark my mind. And we saw that yesterday, where multiple times something sparked my mind and we will occasionally have to go back. And I know it may delay some, Madam Chair, but I think setting the boundaries is more important and doing it right than trying to get everything perfect before we have a hearing. So am I interpreting that you'd like to perhaps move ahead, setting a date for a Judicatory hearing and perhaps even if we didn't have anything extra right now, you would be satisfied with going forward with what's before us. And then should we have more questions that you'd have those addressed down? I think that's fair. Okay, I'll swing back to Commissioner Skinner when you let me know that you're all set. But Commissioner O'Brien, in terms of supplemental information, I'm hearing right now the option on one is practical. I think Commissioner Maynard's comment is correct. I don't know that I know anything specific that I would direct IEB2 in terms of additional information. But as with anything investigatory or review-wise, I'm not gonna be surprised if things come up in the process of a Judicatory hearing. So at this time we could move forward with what we have. Okay, Commissioner Skinner? I'm fine with moving forward in the way that the majority has indicated they'd like to. Okay, so and I am too. So, well, Todd, that's helpful. If we think about process, I know that you're gonna be memorializing in some way for us in addition to our regs. So the limited experience right now seems to be working for us. So I think we do wanna take a vote on this in terms of next steps. Do I have a motion? Did we do that procedurally on the two that are before us this week? I think we just marked it up. Is that what you're saying? I thought it leads to consensus and then marked it up. We can do that. Yeah, I don't think you need to vote. Okay, all right. Then we can just hit, we have an agreement to seek an adjudicatory hearing on these matters because of the nature we wanna be as prompt as possible. I know there's a lot of magic in our scheduling right now, but I think we can ask Judy and Karen and I will work on something with legal to see what we can do. And of course with Barstow and IEP and to making sure that legal has all of, they have some good work to put together in advance. So we'll look for a date that's as convenient for all of us, all stakeholders as soon as possible. Does that make sense? Any further questions? Director Lilian, say you all said. I am, there's one thing that I would like to ask of Penn and that if they make a determination to do anything different around offering that wager, right now they have decided voluntarily they're not going to offer the wager anywhere, but if they decide to offer any kind of can't lose wager in other states on the interface, I would ask for advance notice of that. Good afternoon now, of course. Nice to see you. Good afternoon to hearing commissioners. I'd like to thank the commission for thorough review and consideration of a process today. Very much appreciate that. And to Director Lilly else's question, we will of course stay in close contact with the IEP. Should there be any circumstances to bring to the IEP's attention? Excellent, thank you. Nice to see you. Likewise, thank you. Any further questions, whether that you need a pen? I know, I'll set. Okay. All right, if we don't need any form of action, this is the only item that we've marked up, but do you have any updates or anything that you wish to bring up? Adam Chair, I would like to bring something up that I think would be very informative for the commission. I was able to look at the geocomply pin drop map that is now available to us. It came out, I think a couple of days ago and I am fascinated and I can't stop watching it. So I recommend to my fellow commissioners that you take a look at it because where the pins are dropping is very interesting and you start to see a pattern that I think would be something of interest to the commission as this sports wagering has started up. So I don't know if you have access to it. I know our director of sports wagering sent it to me with the passwords and things, but I recommend that you take a look at it. And I know Karen, we're gonna be getting our TV downstairs and we'll be able to see it every day down in the 12th floor and the public would be able to look at it too. But for my fellow commissioners, very interesting tool that's gonna be very helpful to us in future discussions. I will make sure everyone gets that. Thank you, Bruce. You should never have sent it to me because I've been watching it like for the last 24 hours and it's unbelievable. Your family's been making calls asking where you are. Do you come in now? And GeoComply has been sharing it publicly, which is as part of their service and I know that they are coordinating with Executive Director Wells to make sure that we are always updated. So Karen, it might be a good update. We didn't talk about that during agenda-setting meeting, but GeoComply, when we have a moment because I know we've got quite a few scheduled meetings where our regulations are our priority might be able to have a little update that GeoComply could provide and demonstrate that for us, Commissioner Hill. I know the public is probably interested. It is pretty fascinating. I think we got a glimpse of it first in Maine at that conference, Commissioner Hill. And I remember feeling the same way, it's fascinating. Although it is good to note that it's all anonymized. So it's not that anyone's data is being shown in that graphic, which is very important. I have it up on my second screen right now, but I mean, I don't know if it's appropriate to talk to you. Yeah, let's see what's happening right this moment. Be right now. Karen, I wouldn't be able to keep it up. I'd be always distracted. All right, do you want to go through it a little bit, Karen? Yeah, so, you know, I don't have my, first, do you remember what the colors are? Yeah, the whiter iPads or iPhones, green are androids, red are connections that could either be by VPN or the ones right on the border of the state or probably because they're too close to being outside or ones that are just being rejected. Blues are actual computers. You see a blue one up top, you know, rock poured up there. Yeah, and you can see the reds are kind of, you know, generally near the border. Yeah. So it's very interesting. It can also be because it's on a VPN and it's not releasing the data from the phone. So the system is rejecting it. That's the black. Yeah. What's the black indicator? The black is, it's called other. So there's some other reason that it's not rejecting it. But you get this near game time. You should see the pins drop. It's a purple. There's a purple. Not sure what a purple is at this point. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And this is what, so what are we at? 1216 on a. Yeah. Wednesday. You should have seen it last night before the NIT started. Oh, really? It was like popcorn. Do you want to describe the blue? Oh, sorry. Blue border. That's on the, into the, into the ocean waters. A reminder that. The blue line is actually the geo fencing is, and those, that's the legal area to bet for Massachusetts. And it goes three miles out to, to see in the ocean. You can see where we have a dead spot between Martha's vineyard and then Tuckett. So if you were on a boat, you couldn't vote in between that dead space there, but then you would be good when you entered the waters. It's also about the, the tribal lands. Yeah. The red spots are the tribal land. You can see in Taunton. Yes. And on the vineyard. So you can see why Brad is so intrigued. It does get me memorized. You can actually, if you have it in, you can actually do that. You know, it does get me memorized. You can actually, if you have it in, you can actually almost zero in on the house where the bets being made and let you zero in that, that closely. I've not done that. Thank you for, thank you for bringing that up commissioner Hill. And, and we can still, at some point when it's, maybe when there's some data collected at the right time, but it is part of their service. I understand they're not our vendor. They're the operators vendor, but they work very collaboratively with the regulators, right? Karen. Correct. Yes. They can tell us how many bets are made in a day and, you know, what location most of the bets are made and so on that kind of information. Okay. Any further questions for Bruce or Karen on that? All right. Any other updates? Other business. Okay. Take motion to adjourn. Move to adjourn. I can. Thank you. Any discussion? Mr. Brian. Hi. Mr. Hill. Hi. Mr. Skinner. Hi. Mr. Maynard. Hi. And I vote yes. Thanks everyone.